From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:14:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83ocfgjkj0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> <87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <871vcc4xhf.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83ljakliqt.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276359281 27148 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 16:14:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 18:14:39 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONTLy-00070C-DP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:14:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50737 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONTLx-000869-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:14:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45514 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONTLp-00084V-SU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:14:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONTLo-0002mG-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:14:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:42035) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONTLo-0002m9-IG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L3W00E00T0CFN00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:14:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.88.125]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L3W00AM1T3NHKC0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:14:12 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125822 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:26:42 -0700 > > > Now please note an important detail: in a L2R paragraph, C-f generally > > moves cursor _to_the_right_, even though it could sometimes change > > direction and move to the left, when we are traversing R2L text > > embedded into a L2R paragraph. Similarly, in a R2L paragraph, C-f > > generally moves cursor _to_the_left_. In the important special case, > > when L2R paragraphs include only L2R text and R2L paragraphs include > > only R2L text, cursor motion with C-f is strictly to the right > > resp. to the left. > > That sounds reasonable. > > > This is the reason > > What is the reason? That important special case I described in the last sentence. > > in a purely R2L paragraph containing only R2L text. Any > > other operation would be confusingly counter-intuitive: the > > key would actually move cursor _to_the_left_! > > How is that different for C-f/C-b? C-f/C-b do not have right/left connotation with them. > Should one pair be counter-intuitive but not > the other? Why? Having C-f move to the left in R2L text is not counter-intuitive. To the left is forward in such text, so it matches intuition exactly.